Missing sign - single yellow line - ticket!

[kus1234]

Hi
I've just been given a Penalty Notice PK10 (No Waiting), for being parked near my house on a single yellow line at a restricted time (Mon-Sat 9AM-6PM).
I actually arrived back at my vehicle as the Community Support Officer was writing out the ticket. I explained that there was no sign on this side of the road to advise on restricted times (it is missing). He said it didn't matter as the sign across on the other side of the road clearly stated the times.
I protested to no avail that it is a different side and can't relate to this line.

Is he right? Should I request a court hearing? Did I incriminate myself by sort of letting him know that the sign was missing?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
many thanks
mark

[CrispDust]

AFAIK you are correct - the sign relates to the line on that side of the road. How could you possibly know that that sign that is missing is the same as t'other side of road? Its like saying that a no entry sign would be the same at the other end of the one way road!
Check the yellow line itself - are there any breaks in it (roadworks/worn away etc) and are there definite T bars at each end of the line? Is the line within the regulation widths. This can often get you off. If sign is missing then line probably in poor state of repair also.

[buzby]

You're right - he's wrong. It is important to take a picture of the 'empty' post and a wider shot of its location. This is because if it is going to be replaced, it'll end your argument as you cannot prove it wasn't there when you parked. Send copy images in with your letter of appeal.

[kus1234]

Many thanks for replies.

I have taken a photo of the missing sign/empty post and also of a break of 18" in the line near where I was parked and the general setting.

As well as that my ticket calls it an offence and not a contravention, is this another irregularity? I have scanned my ticket - links below:

Front:
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4958/scan0001mw0.jpg
Back:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5037/scan0002js5.jpg
(there should be a green zoom icon in the bottom right of the scan)


What I'm concerned about is that as it was issued by a CSO there is no appeal procedure, my only option is to go to court. I perhaps have 3 points of appeal here but am concerned of having to pay court costs if I lose.

What do you think?

Thanks again

[buzby]

The break in the line is immaterial - only if it was so mutilated as to not draw attention to the signage. As it was the signage that was deficient, this is the winning hand. The offence cannot be confirmed because of the lack of the sign, so you challenge it in the normal manner with the issuing authority. They'll look stupid if it goes to court, so you're actually returning the ticket to them for cancellation - before it reaches court.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by kus1234

As well as that my ticket calls it an offence and not a contravention, is this another irregularity? I have scanned my ticket - links below:

This is a fixed penalty notice, not a PCN. It can only be challenged via the Magistrates' Court

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by buzby

The break in the line is immaterial - only if it was so mutilated as to not draw attention to the signage.

Take your point about the signage being the trump card. but the above statement is untrue and there is case law that supports that view (Davis v Heatley)

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by patdavies

Take your point about the signage being the trump card. but the above statement is untrue and there is case law that supports that view (Davis v Heatley)

Davis vs Heatley was concering using road markings of the wrong type, colour or size it did not directly make judgement on damaged or worn markings as far as I understand. I doubt very much if for example a two mile stretch of red route would be deemed unenforceable if a rain water drain grill was not painted red or had T bars on each side.

[buzby]

As noted - Davis vs Heatley isn't an appropriate example in this instance. The purpose of the line is simply to warn the motorist that restrictions of some sort apply, and referral to a plate providing the necessary details required. I have successfully challenged both, but there is less certainty of a win based on defective lines is they can in fact be seen (even if badly worn) as all they do is make you refer to the sign. If the sign is missing, they could paint the road completely yellow and it wouldn't matter one jot.

[green_and_mean]

A great deal of roads have different restrictions on either side so any timeplate across the street is totally meaningless. A PCSO has very little training in 'the law' about 2 weeks usually to cover everything, so however well meaning his intentions the FPN was issued incorrectly.

[buzby]

Absolutely, as evidenced by loading bays, off-peak parking spaces and the like, they almost never mirror mirror each other. Then there's that famous street in London (Exhibition Road) where the regulations down one side are the responsibility of one council, and the other another! (Making a parking ticket for incorrect display of a parking voucher bought from a machine on the wrong side of the street a foregone conclusion).

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Doesn't it also depend if you are in a CPZ. I thought in a CPZ the signs only have to be placed at the entry points.

[buzby]

That's just belt and braces - there has* to be an initial CPZ warning as you enter the controlled zone, but from memory these do not provide the required variations within the zone - only the local plate does this. I did hear of a challenge years ago that the motorist disputed the ticket because the route he took at that time did not have a CPZ entry sign. He failed, because the local sign was in place and it is assumed he would/should have noticed this.

*Cannot find this in the regulations, but I'm sure I did read it somewhere.

[green_and_mean]

No time plates are required at all in a CPZ unless the time varies from the zone. The case regarding a missing CPZ sign I think you refer to was regarding parking on a pay and display with no ticket within the zone in a bay which was correctly timeplated hence the case was thrown out despite the adjudicator saying the CPZ signage was incorrect. However if the bay had just said 'permits only' with no time signage I beleive it would be a valid reason to win at appeal as would a yellow line contravention.
It is very unlikely that a PCSO would issue in a CPZ as they are usually enforced by the Council.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by buzby

As noted - Davis vs Heatley isn't an appropriate example in this instance. The purpose of the line is simply to warn the motorist that restrictions of some sort apply, and referral to a plate providing the necessary details required. I have successfully challenged both, but there is less certainty of a win based on defective lines is they can in fact be seen (even if badly worn) as all they do is make you refer to the sign. If the sign is missing, they could paint the road completely yellow and it wouldn't matter one jot.

Davies v Heatley, combined with the TSRGD requirement (including the phrasing "Permitted variations: None") is absolute.

The whole point of Davis v Heatley is that if a sign (and road marking are signs in this context) is not compliant, then no offence can be committed.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

It is very unlikely that a PCSO would issue in a CPZ as they are usually enforced by the Council.

Only in areas of DPE. There are vast swathes of the country where councils cannot enforce anything.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by patdavies

Only in areas of DPE. There are vast swathes of the country where councils cannot enforce anything.

I was not aware of many CPZs being introduced outside of DPE areas as the police do not generally have the resources to check permits etc but if you say there are I'll take your word for it.